IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for conclusive proof of ownership in land disputes, the limitations of the writ court in resolving boundary disputes, and the significance of unexplained delay in approaching the court.

JUDGMENT :

Vijay Bishnoi, J

Heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the respondent No.1; Mr. K.N. Choudhury, senior counsel, assisted by Mr. A. Ganguly, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5 to 7; Ms. N. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department representing the respondent No.8 and Mr. D.K. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, representing the respondent Nos.9 & 10.

2. This writ appeal is filed by the appellants, who are the respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the writ petition, being aggrieved with the order dated 05.04.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.7191/2013, whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition filed on behalf of the writ petitioners (private respondents herein) by concluding that the writ petitioners/private respondents have able to make out a case of illegal occupation over their land by the Railways and, therefore, the Railway is directed to vacate the land of the private respondents, specifically mentioned in the schedule, and handover the peaceful possession of it to them. The learned Single Judge has further observed that for balancing the equities, it is also provided that if over the land, certain immovable structures have been constructed by the Railways or for any other matter, the Railways are not in a position to part with the possession of the land in question, the market price of the land has to be offered and paid to the writ petitioners/private respondents. It is further directed that the said process be completed within a period of 3(three) months from the date of passing of the said order.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1/writ petitioner No.1 Kshitish Chandra Karmakar has initially filed WP(C) No.3389/2013 before this Court with a prayer for issuing a direction to the Revenue Authorities of the State to demarcate the land for which an application/representation was already moved before the concerned authority on 15.05.2013. The learned Single Judge, considering the grievance raised in the said writ petition, has disposed of the same vide order dated 21.06.2013 directing the Circle Officer, Guwahati Revenue Circle to take on record the said representation dated 15.05.2013 and dispose of the same in accordance with law with a further direction that the demarcation prayed for may be carried out upon issuing notice to all the parties, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 2(two) months from the date of furnishing a certified copy of the said order along with the copy of the writ petition and its enclosures.

4. It appears that pursuant to the said order, the respondent No.1/writ petitioner No.1 has preferred an application before the Circle Officer and pursuant to that, demarcation proceedings were concluded by the Circle Officer and the report was also prepared on 31.08.2013, which is annexed with the writ petition as Annexure-F. The respondent No.1/writ petitioner No.1 has thereafter approached the General Manager (W), N.F. Railway by moving a representation alleging that the Railways were in illegal possession and occupation of the land belonging to certain persons, who have executed a power of attorney in his favour, so the Railways should take necessary action for vacating the said land and handover the possession of the said land to those persons. As per the writ petitioners when the Railways did not respond to the said representation, a legal notice was served upon it through an Advocate on 26.10.2013 but Railways had not acceded to the request of the writ petitioners in response to the said legal notice, therefore, they are forced to approach this Court by way of filing the writ petition.

5. In the writ petition, in support of their claim the writ petitioners/private respondents have placed on record copies of the draft Chithas pertaining to the disputed land claiming that K.